By: Anarcho

Anarcho
Sat, 02 May 2015 11:37:19 +0000

In reply to Anonymous. Missing the point, as to be expected

You tell us that anarcho-Capitalism is as much as contradiction as 'anarcho-statism', but exactly that should be said of anarcho-Socialism.

Anarchism has always been socialist so "anarcho-Socialism" is redundant.

If you think that claiming jurisdiction or authority of an area or think is inherently hierarchical and, as such, wrong, then how can you possibly defend anybody ever taking or using anything? Is it not that, to till the earth, or to kill an animal, or to sleep or live anywhere, in some considerable sense, to claim jurisdiction of it?

You miss the point -- "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist because it supports the property owner claiming authority over the people who use the area. It supports hierarchical relationships between people. That you do not see the basic point shows how propertarian ideology rots the brain -- as can be seen from Rothbard's self-contradictory pap.

If you reject private property, then you must surely offer public property to replace it, or claim that there is no property at all, which is plainly just to misunderstand what property is.

Comments like these simply show how ignorant propertarians are of the real libertarian tradition. Read Proudhon's What is Property? -- that explains why property is theft and despotism and why we need to abolish it.

More importantly, though, you seem to conflate two different types of freedom. You compare a free market society to being trapped in a hole, in which there is only one option - you ask if someone in that situation is really 'free'?

You clearly don't understand the point of that analogy.

But as determinists (and I assume you are one), we can only accept that all our lives we only have one option, only one series of events which can possibly take place. This does not mean that we are never free, and therefore just because someone has only one option (for example, only one job opportunity), it cannot mean that they are unfree, unless you mean by some other standard of freedom.

Again, you completely miss the point of the analogy -- try re-reading the article.

One example might be what seems to be Rothbard's standard, namely the absence of coercion. It does follow from this that your man in a hole is indeed free, in some considerable sense. But to see that this is not a problem is only to recognize that metaphysical freedom and political or individual freedom are two different things.

Again, you completely miss the point of the analogy. Rothbard admits that the freed slaves are subject to economic and political coercion and, correctly, draws this conclusion from their lack of property. They have no choice to sell their liberty to the boss class. Yet when he looks at the wage-slave under capitalist -- who is in exactly the same position as the ex-slave -- he sees nothing but freedom.

This shows the power of ideology, how the worship of capitalism, leads the true believer into obvious self-contradiction.

Indeed, it would surely follow from this idea of freedom as [...]

I again have to say, you completely miss the point. This is unsurprising for if the typical propertarian could understand the very obvious point being made then they would not be a propertarian. Unless, of course, they really don't care about freedom and wish to be either part of the elite few or wish to apologise for such social inequality and its corresponding denial of freedom for the many.

All in all, may I suggest you read some basic anarchist works before trying to critique it. It would save us lots of time.